[mlmpetert]

I think you’ve completely missed what I was trying to say.

I absolutely do not believe religion or belief of any kind should be off limits to ridicule or scrutiny. Rather i just think its sad that people find purpose in insulting and mocking the beliefs of others. However, what I find even more unfortunate is the selective scrutiny and extremist sympathizing many of us seem to display.

I was trying to ask why are most of us okay with the NY Times allowing attacks on Catholics but not Muslims? Why is selective discrimination allowed on a variety of fronts? Im not all that outraged by the NY Times and I don’t think anyone else here is either, but shouldn’t we be? Should we care that Muslims are treated differently because people are worried about what some of them they might do?

You started a thread about a Muslim getting off for assaulting an atheist for dressing up as the Prophet Mo, and titled it First Amendment Right. To me that came across as why is offensive speech seemingly not allowed for some things but okay for others, particularly in regards to different ideologies or a nuance outside the word ideology. Whats your reason behind this thread? What do you find interesting in regards to the First Amendment and this case? Prior to knowing more about the case, why did you find the judge’s decision horrendously inept?